A Suffolk Superior Court judge has confirmed an arbitrator’s decision ordering the reinstatement of former Worcester Police Officer David Rawlston, who was fired after an April 2007 incident in which he allegedly pointed a handgun at three teenagers in his neighborhood.

The case involving Mr. Rawlston has been mired in appeals, lawsuits and multiple court decisions since arbitrators ruled in favor of the former officer and stated he should not have been fired and should be reinstated.

This most recent decision in favor of Mr. Rawlston came in Suffolk Superior Court last month after City Manager Michael V. O’Brien filed a complaint against the union representing Mr. Rawlston, the New England Police Benevolent Association Local 911.

The complaint filed by the city manager sought an order by a judge to vacate the arbitrator’s order in the second decision reinstating Mr. Rawlston. Judge Paul D. Wilson decided on March 26 to confirm the arbitrator’s award in the second decision, according to paperwork on file in Suffolk Superior Court.

Police Chief Gary J. Gemme said Tuesday that he recommended to the city that the judge’s decision be appealed, which he believes city lawyers will do.

A large portion of the case surrounded Chief Gemme’s decision to deny Mr. Rawlston’s application of a license to carry. The former officer reapplied after his license to carry expired during the investigation into the April 2007 incident.

The city contended that Mr. Rawlston cannot perform his duties without a firearm and that he lied when asked on the application if his license to carry had ever been suspended, revoked or denied. His license to carry had been indefinitely suspended after the April 2007 incident.

The arbitrator in the second decision involving Mr. Rawlston’s firing found his “no” answer on the gun license question was not dishonest or deceitful and therefore could not be used as grounds for his firing.

“Further, the arbitrator found that the city did not have just cause to terminate Rawlston because he did not have a license to carry a firearm,” the judge wrote in his decision. “The arbitrator noted that the city had not shown that possession of a license to carry a firearm was a necessary job requirement for a Worcester police officer. That arbitrator further found that even if possession of a license to carry a firearm was a requirement of the job, the police chief could waive such a requirement, and had done so in the past.”

Chief Gemme said he found Mr. Rawlston to be unsuitable to have a license to carry and if someone is unsuitable, he is not going to waive that requirement. Also, those waivers are done on a case-by-case basis, he said.

The chief believes the community should understand the circumstances surrounding the incident. He said at the time of the incident the former officer was out with an arm injury and that injury limited Mr. Rawlston’s ability to secure his gun. Also, the chief said the former officer had no holster.

Chief Gemme said Mr. Rawlston pointed his weapon at three teens and struck two of them in the back of the head. The chief said pointing the gun at the teens “declared” that the then-officer was prepared to use deadly force.

He said the incident was never reported to supervisors and Mr. Rawlston did not request medical treatment for the teens, even though that is a requirement for officers. There was no evidence that the teens were involved in any crime and no arrests were made, the chief said.

“Based on the totality of these facts, Rawlston clearly used excessive, unjustified and unreasonable force,” Chief Gemme said Tuesday. “Rawlston is both an unsuitable person for a license to carry and unsuitable to be a Worcester police officer.”

The chief added that his officers make roughly 8,000 arrests a year and roughly a half of 1 percent of those arrests involve an officer pointing a weapon at a suspect.

The chief said all legal avenues will be exhausted in this case. He believes the community should not be “compelled to accept a bad decision by an arbitrator when there are still legal avenues to appeal.” He said he believes the higher courts will rule in favor of the city.

A lawyer for the police union representing Mr. Rawlston in this recent case did not return a phone call.

Mr. Rawlston, who was hired in April 1994, was fired in February 2008 after the alleged incident. After an initial arbitrator’s decision awarding the former officer his job back, the city fired him again, stating he did not have a license to carry. The second arbitrator found in favor of Mr. Rawlston, awarding him his job back.

The city contended, in court filings, that the arbitrator violated public policy by requiring Mr. Rawlston be reinstated even though he could not meet essential requirements of the job. The city also argued Mr. Rawlston made untruthful statements on his application for a license to carry.

“The arbitrator’s award violated the well-defined and dominant public policy expressed in (state laws) in that it usurped the authority of the chief of police to deny applications for licenses to carry firearms and usurped the authority of the district court to hear appeals of such denials,” the city further argued.

Judge Wilson found that the arbitrator did not violate public policy or exceed authority. He also said the arbitrator found that the city could not choose to deny Mr. Rawlston a license to carry and use that voluntary denial as a reason to evade the first arbitrator’s decision awarding Mr. Rawlston his job back.

“The arbitrator’s award also did not interfere with the police chief’s discretion to issue a license to carry a firearm,” the judge wrote. “The arbitrator did not order the police chief to issue Rawlston a license to carry a firearm. In fact, the arbitrator explicitly stated that the police chief ‘may be free to exercise his claimed authority to refuse to permit Rawlston to carry a weapon.’ ”